🔗 Share this article

For years, survivors of the late financier Jeffrey Epstein have demanded justice. For a while, it seemed like they would achieve it.

Epstein’s former associate Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was found guilty of human trafficking in a 2021 trial for her role in the late financier’s exploitation of teen girls – and sentenced to two decades behind bars.

At the same time, banks that had worked with Epstein, although not admitting wrongdoing, agreed to pay substantial sums in agreements to victims. Former President Trump even made disclosing the documents related to the Epstein probe part of his election promises, and reiterated on his commitment to do so in recent months.

In the end, Trump’s justice department did not make public these files, and his administration has become embroiled in allegations about social ties between him and Epstein. Congressional promises to disclose documents have stalled, due to partisan maneuvering and delays from federal authorities.

But recent legal actions could shed light on Epstein’s operations amid the deadlock – irrespective of their outcome.

Legal Actions Target Major Banks

These lawsuits, submitted by an unnamed accuser against Bank of America and the BNY Mellon, allege that these banking giants illicitly enabled Epstein’s sex trafficking. The cases are helmed by attorney Sigrid McCawley, of Boies Schiller Flexner, and Brad Edwards of Edwards Henderson, who have long represented Epstein victims.

“The financier carried out these offenses by means of not only his own vast fortune and influence, but through access to funding and financial support from both private parties and institutions, including BNY,” the legal filing states. “Shockingly, the institution had a plethora of information regarding Epstein’s trafficking network but chose profit over safeguarding those harmed.”

The Bank of America suit echoes these allegations, asserting the institution “deliberately supplied the monetary resources and the appearance of respectability for Epstein and his accomplices to fuel their international sex trafficking organization under the guise of non-criminal business activities”. The legal action also said Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports.

Attorneys Weigh In on Case Challenges

Experienced lawyers who spoke to the matter said proving such a case would be challenging. But they also identified possible outcomes which could provide solace to plaintiffs or disclosure of previously hidden details.

Attorney Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who established West Coast Trial lawyers, said evidence has to show that an institution’s actions led to harm.

“In my view, the case faces significant obstacles – and obviously I am on the side of the victims, and I want them to get explanations and criminal justice and financial recovery,” the attorney said. Some claims might be not directly related from a juridical perspective.

“It all comes down to evidence,” Rahmani said. A attorney would need to prove cause and effect, which would mean “but for the defendant’s conduct, the injury wouldn’t have happened”. In this case, that would boil down to “absent the institution’s involvement, the survivor maybe wouldn’t have been trafficked”, Rahmani clarified.

A lawyer would also have to go beyond a “but for” measure. “It’s not solely about indirect cause. It also has to be a substantial factor: that is the legal test. So any improper behavior there was, if there was any misconduct … the defendant’s misconduct has to have been a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff harm.

“Through maintaining financial ties to Epstein, is that a decisive element? It’s uncertain.”

Regardless of legal responsibility, such lawsuits could put institutions on notice that associations with those accused of wrongdoing can have negative consequences for them.

“It represents a reputational disaster,” Rahmani noted. If the financial institutions try to get these cases dismissed and are unsuccessful, the attorney expects a swift settlement. “No one wants to go litigate any of the legal matters tied to Epstein.”

Attorney Eric Faddis, a trial attorney and founder of the Colorado law firm Varner Faddis and former prosecutor, said companies can be liable. In this scenario, “if the institutions bear fault is going to hinge, in part, on their level of awareness, if they were informed of claimed misconduct or illegal acts”, and somehow provided assistance to Epstein.

“However, even in that case, I think it’s going to be difficult to sort of loop the banks into some kind of trafficking operation. The banks would likely not be aware of the particulars of allegations,” the lawyer said. While the financier’s prior legal case was known, “it’s not illegal for a bank to have a client who’s an unsavory person”.

“However, it is unlawful for a financial firm to somehow be involved in the criminal activity of a client, but those two issues are very different, and so I think that it’s going to be a difficult case against the institutions.”

Possible Advantages for Survivors

Nevertheless, important aspects of the litigation could help those affected by Epstein.

“The lawsuits have the potential to reveal more information about the ongoing Epstein saga,” the attorney said. “Despite the fact that there have been sort of walls put up at every turn for folks seeking this data, when there’s a legal action, there’s a discovery process, and that discovery process often mandates disclosure of information that was not previously public.”

Attorney Brad Edwards said in a statement that the lawsuits could have a deterrent effect and accomplish what lawmakers have been unable to do.

“The lawsuits are necessary for complete justice for the victims of the financier – as well as for future would-be victims who will suffer from comparable criminal networks – if our financial institutions are not made responsible for the crucial part each plays, either in providing the required framework for the illegal operation or identifying the monetary aspect of these offenses and putting an end to it.

He added: “Our prospects are significantly higher of effecting meaningful change than lawmakers, because we know the facts and background of the case and are not driven by politics but rather by a sincere intention to create substantial impact and to protect the victims, who have already endured immense pain.

“Our handling of these issues without any partisan motives and thus cannot be deterred by shutdowns, shielding influential figures, or the other embarrassing partisan gamesmanship you and the rest of the world have had to watch unfold recently.”

Attorney Sigrid McCawley said in a statement: “While legislators attempt to uncover how Jeffrey Epstein was able to orchestrate his criminal sex-trafficking enterprise for many years without detection, we are taking another important step forward toward legal resolution for victims.”

Institutional Reactions

Asked for comment on the legal complaint, the Bank of New York Mellon said: “The claims in the lawsuit are meritless, and we will vigorously defend against it.”

Bank of America’s statement similarly remarked: “We will vigorously defend ourselves in this case.”